ORDER C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the rateable value proposed to be fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of his property No. B-90, G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi and prays that the rateable value be fixed on the basis of costs of land and costs of construction under section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act in accordance with the principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur Vs. N.D.M.C., and Dr. Balbir Singh Vs. N.D.M.C. . The petitioner has thus sought to set aside the order of respondent No. 2 dated 25th July, 1983 (Annexure G to the petition), the bill dated 10th September, 1983 (Annexure H to the petition) and notice dated 26th March, 1977.
2. The plot under the premises was purchased for a sum of Rs.17,546/- and an amount of Rs.1,14,714 was spent on the construction of the building. Additions were made by the petitioner. The respondents sought to revise the rateable value of the property from Rs. 8,880/- to Rs. 11,630/- with effect from 1.4.1973. Notice was given to the respondents, objections were filed and the ratable value for the year 1972-73 was fixed at Rs. 4,240/- and for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 was fixed at Rs. 5220/-.
3. In the year 1976-77 the respondents again sought to revise the rate able value from Rs. 5220/- to Rs.24,470/- with effect from 1.4.1976. A notice dated 26.3.1977 was served on the petitioner proposing to enhance the rateable value effective from 1.4.1976. The petitioner was required to file objections by 30th April, 1977. In response to the aforesaid notice the petitioner filed objections on 26th April, 1977.
4. The petitioner contended in the objections that the grounds were imaginary and false. Apart from this the notice was not specifically objected to as not containing any ground for the proposed enhancement of rateable value. The petitioner furnished a copy of the lease deed, a copy of the balance sheet and a copy of the completion certificate to enable the respondents to fix the rateable value of the property under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner appeared before the respondents and contended that the property be assessed on the basis of costs of the land and costs of construction and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur Vs. N.D.M.C. (Supra). The petitioner further contended that the old rateable value be maintained. The petitioner did not submit any valuation report of the property but stated that total cost of construction had been admitted by the Income Tax Department.
5. The assessing authority observed that the assessment of the property had already been made but came to the conclusion that the property was not properly valued. As such the rateable value was revised under Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by adopting flat rate method. The rateable value was thus fixed at Rs. 24,470/- with effect from 1.4.1976 after allowing statutory rebate etc.
6. Thereafter the respondent corporation sent a bill dated 10th September, 1983 for a sum of Rs. 47,773/-. On receipt of the said bill the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was of the view that the writ petition was not maintainable in the Supreme Court and directed the petitioner to agitate the matter by way of the writ petition before the High Court. Hence the present petition.
7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 26th March, 1977 proposing to increase the rateable value of the property did not state any reason. It was next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the assessing officer was bound to fix the rateable value of the property on the basis of the data furnished by the petitioner in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in cases of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur (Supra). By invoking Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for fixing the rateable value of the property the action of the respondent No. 2 was illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further contended that the adoption of flat rate method for fixing rateable value was contrary to decision of the Supreme Court in New Manek Chowk Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & others, .
8. As no other counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel for the M.C.D., who was present in Court, was directed to enter appearance on behalf of the respondent. After the perusal of the court file she made her submissions.
9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that reasons were given in the notice and the petitioner filed detailed reply meeting the grounds set out in the notice. She further contended that the petitioner did not take any objection with regard to the validity of the notice either in their objections or before the Assessing Authority. The learned counsel for the respondent confirmed after seeing the copy of the original notice that grounds were stated in the said notice. The ground read as under :
"Erroneously valued and under assessed, withdrawal of concessional assessment, increase in letting value of the property owing to better civil amenities of the area."
10. The petitioner having responded to the said notice was now estopped from raising this plea.
11. If the notice was too vague and did not state the grounds clearly, the petitioner could not have, held himself aback by resorting to technicalities and allowing the authority to proceed ahead and then challenge the assessment by submitting that the notice itself was bad. Even the defective notice could be cured by issuing a supplementary notice. In the present case there were grounds stated in the notice and the petitioner has responded adequately to those grounds and he did not raise objections to the validity of the notice either in the objections or before the assessing authority and was not prejudiced in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme court in Asstt. General Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the city of Ahmedabad, . The said decision has no application to the facts of this case.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded in court that fixation of the standard rent on the basis of Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not sustainable and is liable to be struck down. The principles as laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur Vs. N.D.M.C. and Dr.Balbir Singh vs. N.D.M.C. (supra) are to be adopted. The attention of this Court was invited to M/s. John Tinson & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. N.D.M.C. and another 1996 IV AD (Delhi) 780. Consequently the respondents were bound to assess the property in accordance with Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
13. It is for the owner to file a complaint if he feels the rateable value to be too high. Ordinarily a rateable value will be fixed after verifying the particulars having given by the owner/occupier and the hearing is also contemplated. A hearing was given in the present case. All material particulars were filed by the petitioner.
14. I am upholding the validity of the notice. In the present case I have seen the original notice and the rubber stamp is clear and legible. Even if rubber stamped notices are resorted to, care should be taken so that the contents are legible so as to be capable of being understood or assessed in conformity with the facts of the individual case. The petitioner's response to the grounds of revision in the notice was precise and clear and the validity of the notice was not objected to at any stage and it is for the first time that an objection has been raised in this writ petition.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent having conceded that assessment should not have been made on the basis of section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the impugned bill raised as a consequent thereof is also bad and is liable to be set aside.
16. For these reasons the aforesaid writ petition is allowed, the order dated 25.7.1983 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure G to the petition) and the bill dated 10th September, 1983 are set aside.
17. No order as to costs.